An increased number of vehicle owners possess vehicles, particularly automobiles, that they value highly. At the same time, occurrences of vehicle theft and vandalizing are increasing; and, vehicle insurance rates are generally going up. Accordingly, many vehicle owners feel a need for an automobile alarm system to reduce the likelihood of theft and vandalization and to reduce insurance rates.
Numerous vehicle alarm systems are readily available. Typically, such systems incorporate various sensors which detect motion, presence, door openings, window openings, and the like. One or more of the sensors activates when a security breach occurs. When one of these sensors activates, an audible alarm sounds. Hopefully, the audible alarm will scare off a would-be thief or vandal and warn an owner, who may be nearby, of tampering with his or her vehicle.
Similar alarm systems are available for use in connection with buildings. In addition, building alarm systems often couple via phone lines to a security service. Such building-installed systems automatically call the security service when a security breach occurs. When the security service receives such a call, it takes steps to validate the alarm and notify appropriate parties, such as a police department, of the alarm. The validation steps may include calling building owners or managers to inquire if the reported security breach is a false alarm, and dispatching a patrol vehicle to investigate if necessary.
Persons who need vehicle alarms could benefit from some of the advantages achieved by automatically reporting a vehicle alarm to a security service. Furthermore, mobile cellular radiotelephones (CMRs) are becoming increasingly available and might be adapted to this purpose. However, CMRs represent complicated equipment, and their increasing availability is due, at least in part, to mass production techniques that reduce CMR costs. These same mass production techniques promote CMR standardization. In other words, in order to reduce CMR costs, enormous numbers of CMRs operate substantially the same way.
This standardization works against successfully adapting a CMR to report security breaches. Specifically, different security services have different procedures and requirements. For example, security services must work closely with police departments in their geographical area. Police departments typically require their local security services to adopt certain procedures for validating security breach reports before police departments are notified. Diverse police departments may require diverse procedures.
In addition, different security services may have different levels of technical capabilities. For example, security services with many clients, such as those in large metropolitan areas, may be able to dedicate phone lines and incorporate various computer systems into their operations to help manage incoming alarm-report response procedures. Such computer systems may have diverse technical reporting requirements. Furthermore, security services with few clients may not even be able to employ computers at all and still provide cost effective security services.
The standardization of CMRs presents further problems which work against successfully adapting a CMR to report security breaches. Specifically, individual clients of a security service may have different security needs. For example, a security service may provide different levels of security services to its clients for different prices. Lower level services may be designed to minimize the likelihood of false alarms. Thus, the cost of responding to false alarms is lower for the security service. Of course, a consequence of less-likely false alarms is that true alarms are more likely to be missed and responsive actions by the security service delayed. Higher level services may be designed to minimize the likelihood of missing true alarms or minimize delay in responding to alarms. As a consequence of this high-level service, more false alarms are to be expected, and the security service's costs of responding to these false alarms increase.
Accordingly, numerous programmable alarm parameters are needed to personalize each individual vehicle to each security service. While CMRs have been available which permit users and dealers to program various parameters of the CMR, this procedure is not practical for alarm parameters. Generally, the quantity of alarm parameters needed to personalize a CMR to accommodate numerous diverse services and individuals is too large for conventional user entry. Programming mistakes would be expected, and unreliable programming would result. Furthermore, the technical nature of the task would require an investment of great effort and time on the part of users or dealers in learning such parameters, their significance, their ranges, and how to program them. Extensive user and dealer frustration would be expected, and product dissatisfaction would result.